If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

ewing

Originally Posted by stephkyle7

^ to clarify my stance, there is a tactic in public speaking that is basically an inference by denial.

That witch senator from back east used it to slander her opponent by repeatedly claiming over and over that she DIDNOT,at any point EVERY suggest her opponent was gay.
By doing this over and over it created the rumor that maybe...dude was Gay!

So when Identifying the issue of presidential spending, and then using an example that supports a political ideology rather then the best example(which was Bush) you are stirring the pot wether it was your intent or not.

there is a difference in this, then when Ds ignore Obamas spending compared to Bushs(just as an example).
1) our spending NOW is directly linked to the problems we inherited from the previous admin.So It is unfair to ignore the causal connection between the two.
2) expense account spending or vacas have no transitional link, so your point would have been better made excluding Obama.
To directly answer you question, I think that ,that kind of spending is as good a place to start as any.
If the president needs time off, Camp David is a lot closer then Hawaii. jaunting off to Mauii 7-12 times a year isnt what I want a president doing.
But dont stop there.
All congressional memebers enjoy expense accounts...why?
If Mcdonalds is good enough for my son, its good enough for them.If they want a 80 dollar champagne brunch, I can tell you ,I certainly dont want to pay for it.

The thread is not about Obama's or Bush's vacations and the OP is criticizing neither of them. The thread questions the "policy" of paying for Presidential vacations and it is neither a democratic or republican policy.

ewing

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

We agree on something...gasp.

The reason they don't pay it is because so much of the cost is associated with being president not with the travel. There are people all over the place who would love to take out the president and so we must protect the president.

I agree but like most things the the gov't pays for the numbers sound high. Like someone is walking out the back door with a bunch of money. Or people are getting some kind of sweet hart deal.

Btw, i sure none is important enough for the President to have anything to do with and think the gov't is is ripe with corruption regardless of who is running it

Why not? Maybe you feel like you shouldn't criticize a president for taking advantage of perks that have always been there but you can certainly criticize the peaks themselves if you feel they should exist.

If a person can do it without being hypocritical and politically-biased, absolutely. I just do not believe this is the case.